| Author |
Message |
    
Buellinachinashop
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 02:17 pm: | 
|
"I'm perfectly fine with targeting personnel."
"I'm not fine with sending out death squads to kill people."
What's the difference? Its ok if by random chance a target of opportunity strolls by?
That's not war imo.
An assasination would be a kill in peace time. In war its eliminating a target who could cause grave harm to your ability to win.
We're still at war in Iraq. |
Seanp
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 02:29 pm: |
|
Aiming at a tank or APC with antennas on the battlefield is a part of smart targeting. Putting a bounty on a person's head is assassination. There is a difference, especially when it comes to the circumstances of the kill. The word "treacherously" is the operative word in the paragraph. It may be too fine a point for everyone to understand, but that's why not everyone is able to make the call on the battlefield.
There is a whole book called the Law of Land Warfare for a reason. There must be rules, even in warfare. |
Buellinachinashop
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 02:36 pm: |
|
"Putting a bounty on a person's head is assassination."
The US military pays snipers to eliminate targets of opportunity, I highly doubt anyody is going to look at that as bounty. Nor are they getting cash back or frequent flyer miles for kills.
Our US Military isn't a band of Mercs running around notching bed posts. |
Slaughter
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 03:08 pm: |
|
Guess what everybody, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, we are ONLY targeting civilians. Irregular forces by their nature ARE civilian.
Civilians took down the WTC and flew into the Pentagon.
"The times, they are a-changin'" |
Smokescreen
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 03:19 pm: |
|
MISSION TACTICS
"Having described the object and means of maneuver warfare and its philosophy of command, we will next discuss how we put maneuver warfare into practice. First is through the use of mission tactics. Mission tactics are just as the name implies: the tactic of assigning a subordinate mission without specifying how the mission must be accomplished. We leave the manner of accomplishing the mission to the subordinate, thereby allowing him the freedom--and establishing the duty--to take whatever steps he deems necessary based on the situation. The senior prescribes the method of execution only to the degree that is essential for coordination. It is this freedom for initiative that permits the high tempo of operations that we desire. Uninhibited by restrictions from above, the subordinate can adapt his actions to the changing situation. He informs his commander what he has done, but he does not wait for permission.
It is obvious that we cannot allow decentralized initiative without some means of providing unity, or focus, to the various efforts. To do so would be to dissipate our strength. We seek unity, not through imposed control, but through harmonious initiative and lateral coordination." quoted directly from the Manual
So is utilizing our resources to execute key members of the enemy make us bad guys? Nonsense, flamethrowers and napalm struck fear into our enemies. Damn humanitarians.
Smokescreen |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 05:04 pm: |
|
There is a whole book called the Law of Land Warfare for a reason. There must be rules, even in warfare.
Says who and to what ends? |
Seanp
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 05:20 pm: |
|
Says the US Army, and to the ends that we don't devolve into a brutal, unethical, lawless band of miscreants.
Let's take torture, for example. Do you think that's a valid use of force? I'm sure you're more than willing to say yes, torture those ugly bastard terrorists. But what if a little old lady happens to know where someone is hiding a bomb? Do you break her fingers, one by one? Ok, what if it's a 10-year-old boy? Do you stick red-hot nails under his fingernails to get information? I'd hope not.
Another example: you and your soldiers have been attacked unmercifully for days as you patrol a local area. One day, you actually have an opportunity to pursue an enemy. You come across a wide open field, and notice a pile of rocks marking it as mined. There is a local farmer there, tending to his small garden next to the field. You're sure he knows where the mines are laid, and could escort you across safely, thus to pursue and run down the enemy. Do you force the farmer at gunpoint to walk in front of you and your men? Or do you hike around the field, possibly losing the enemy that you've never quite been able to catch thus far?
There are plenty more hypotheticals like that one. And there are plenty of instances of brutality being used with subsequent loss of legitimacy. It's the reason democracies have a hard time with insurgencies. In an insurgency, the lines are not black-and-white like in a conventional fight. Instead, you deal with shades of grey. These shades of grey allow a lot of rule-bending. Unfortunately, as a military force bends rules, and the people who support and pay for that force find out, the force loses support at home.
So the insurgent enemy, fighting against the military force of a democracy, has an added weapon - public opinion. As the enemy is able to wield public opinion against the democracy, the latter's military loses support, willpower, and ultimately the war. And in today's globalized geopolitical theater, you can't just think about how the American public sees things. You have to take into account how the British, Germans, Chinese, Russians, and even (heaven forbid!) how the French see the actions of the American military. |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 05:38 pm: |
|
"Field Manual 27-10 states:"31. Assassination and Outlawry
HR provides:
It is especially forbidden * * * to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army. (HR, art. 23, par. (b).)
This article is construed as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy's head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy "dead or alive". It does not, however, preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere.
Here's a nice link to the actual Field manual 27-10...
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm
Seems like if one wanted to understand what Field Manual 27-10 Section 31 means, one would need to read the text which it invokes, namely HR, art. 23, par. (b) which invokes is part of the Annex to Hague Convention No. IV, 18 October 1907, embodying the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
Some goofball must have added that "assassination" bit. I don't see it anywhere within the referenced Hague Regulation which follows:
Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
Additionally, does the above Army code govern all our forces including for instance the CIA and other special operators? No matter, the interpretation sure seems to take some seriously wide liberties in "interpreting" what is pretty much plain simple English. Nothing about assassinations in there at all. I suppose they may mean "assassination" in the strict political target sense. Meaning that if you are targeting a combatant, it ain't "assassination".
No matter, people are telling tall tales and know not of what they speak. We're all just having fun talking about it.
I still think it is something much different. Targeted sniping is nothing new.
(Message edited by Blake on September 11, 2008) |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 05:45 pm: |
|
assassinate: to murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.
Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Not sure how killing any combatant could be considered a surprise attack for political reasons. Pretty sure it would be considered combat.
I mean get real, how do you then reconcile bombing and its unavoidable collateral damage?
According to the logic some are offering here, it would be okay to bomb a entire building or block or installation, but illegal to target specific combatants in a surgical strike by special operators.
That is ludicrous. |
Macbuell
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 05:55 pm: |
|
I'm a fan of Jack Bauer and whatever he thinks is acceptable in the line of duty is fine with me.  |
Seanp
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 05:55 pm: |
|
FM 27-10 is a US Army field manual; therefore, it only governs the Army. So you're correct, Blake--it has no impact on how the CIA, Marines, Air Force, or any other entity runs their operations. But this is the manual that US Army officers use to conduct warfare, and the one that cadets are taught to follow before they're given platoons and sections out in the world. We don't learn the Hague Regulation.
As far as "some goofball" adding that part... Well, we've been using the same manual for over 50 years, (the original was published in 1956, with an update in 1976) so obviously it has some merit. I can't think of any other FM that has remained the same for a half century. So, I don't believe that "goofballs" had a hand in writing it, or else surely some braniacs would have updated it the ensuing years. But perhaps I'm just being naive and overly optimistic.
And for anyone else that's interested in the topic of ethics in war, another good book is Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars. |
Seanp
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 06:11 pm: |
|
You reconcile bombing and collateral damage as a necessary means to an end. However, you can't indiscriminately bomb buildings thinking a terrorist might be in there. You have to have some sort of proof of a military force occupying the building. If you don't, you risk losing legitimacy. And there are plenty of paragraphs in FM 27-10 that discuss bombing. Read it, and you might understand.
And as far as "special operators" being used to target people, that's ok if the people are combatants. However, what's really a combatant nowadays? Is a leader inspiring people to revolt considered a combatant? Back in the spring of 2004, Moqtada Al-Sadr was causing all sorts of problems in Iraq, stirring up trouble in Najaf and Diwaniyah. Should we have just sent in a CIA operative to assassinate him? I'm sure that would have put a kibosh on the Shia uprising that ensued. Heck, what if we had just assassinated Saddam Hussein instead of wasting all those resources fighting a ground war. I mean, how is the leader of an army not a combatant? So once we declared war, we could have just unleashed a posse of assassins into Iraq, saving thousands of lives, both Iraqi and coalition. That would have been stupendous! |
Buellinachinashop
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 06:14 pm: |
|
"However, you can't indiscriminately bomb buildings thinking a terrorist might be in there."
So all the B-52 carpet bombing runs historically done, we'll have to take back? |
Cowboy
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 06:23 pm: |
|
All I cn say on this is my hero , was still is and always will be is George Patton. When he said dont die for your country make the other S.O.B. die for his.
Those are my feelings any way you cut it. |
Kilroy
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 07:47 am: |
|
The problem with you Seanp, is that you are trying to apply normal thought, normal law, normal civil action to the process of war. War is an ugly, ugly thing, and that has been diluted in our society. People have forgotten what "war" really means. Ugly things happen in war. When you get to the point of war, it is usually at the "kill or be killed" level. So put away your sniveling horse crap and move to France. I for one say "do whatever you have to do" to our forces in order to win, win fast, and win while losing the fewest of our folks that you can. Any hesitation will only result in our winning slower, or losing more of our folks, or both. Keep in mind what the people we are tracking down would do to YOU, your mother, your child if they had the opportunity. |
Aeholton
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 09:25 am: |
|
Um Kilroy, this is a debate over military tactics. No need to get personal with Seanp. By looking at his profile it appears he is an active duty member of the US Army. |
Kilroy
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 11:02 am: |
|
My bad - bad day at work and took it out on the first available target. No offense intended.
My apologies to all |
Seanp
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 04:22 pm: |
|
I am indeed an active duty member of the Army, have studied the ethics of war, have spent 27 months in Iraq and Kuwait, have lost close personal friends in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have been giving up many of my own personal freedoms for the past 15 years so I can serve my country.
No offense taken. I have sweated, bled, and cried so that you can enjoy the freedom to think, say, and post on a message board anything you want to. Feel free. |
Mastersapper
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 06:57 pm: |
|
"FM 27-10 is a US Army field manual; therefore, it only governs the Army"
FM 27-10 is a Field Manual for the Army,correct. But it is not a Regulation. Field manuals are used as general guide lines. They usually are not even followed all the way, but give us soldiers a start when we are trying to figure out how to do something. |
Seanp
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 08:29 pm: |
|
True, it is a FM, and not an AR. But it is still the one "accepted" consolidation of the law of land warfare. And most ROE's are based on the LLW, and the Soldier's Manual of Common tasks references the LLW. So no, like any doctrine it's a guideline or framework. That's a good point.
However, in today's age of asymmetric warfare, the enemy is able to use international opinion as a weapon against a more powerful force. Colonel Thomas Hammes's The Sling and the Stone is a good read to learn more about the future of warfare, and how the enemy uses information as a tool. Also, Gil Merom's How Democracies Lose Small Wars is important for today's conflicts, especially for the United States.
That's the thing - it's much more than knowing what the laws are - it's also knowing the why behind it, and the greater consequences of your actions. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 10:22 pm: |
|
As I read it, the FM is not simply refering to the Hague Articles, it is invoking them just as if they comprised the text of the manual. If that is correct and the manual invokes the Hague articles, followed by ancillary comments on interpretation of the Hague article, then it seems that if one is serious about understanding the manual, one would want to read the Hague articles that it invokes.
Thanks for your service and blood Sean.
HooHah!
(Message edited by Blake on September 14, 2008) |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 02:22 am: |
|
The reason none of the detainees are on American soil is so that NONE of them will ever get the inclination that they are protected by American Law.
There is a long list of what is prohibited, but a very wide gap about what isnt even listed. Time critical information has very special needs.
There is still a 25Mil bounty on Bin Laden, and the two that collected on Hussein's sons bounty enjoyed it for a bit. We pay bounties, we pay for information, we bribe, we 'persuade' ; if you think we dont, you arent paying attention. |
|
